4 ms·
> Google is not a naive poor company that isn't capable to have a lawyer company setting up proper support contracts. Set up contracts with whom, exactly? Goog
by coder543 3y ago
> Google is not a naive poor company that isn't capable to have a lawyer company setting up proper support contracts.
Set up contracts with whom, exactly? Google doesn’t control the other OEMs, and the other OEMs are the ones negotiating with Qualcomm, not Google. Unless you’re specifically talking about the Pixel line, which doesn’t have enough market share to force Qualcomm to agree to anything.
Are you perhaps suggesting Google should suddenly and unilaterally prevent Android from working on Qualcomm devices until Qualcomm agrees to support it for X years? Which, if it were even possible, would hurt the other OEMs more than it would hurt Google?
Or are you suggesting that Google stop working with the other OEMs until they agree to negotiate with Qualcomm to support their devices longer?
Google can’t prevent Qualcomm or the other OEMs from compiling Android for their devices; it’s not closed source like Windows. Your comment is confusing.
If Android were closed source, and if Google were negotiating this from the beginning, your comment would make sense. With an open source product, Qualcomm can just do whatever they need to in order to bring Android to Qualcomm devices. The cat is already out of the bag. Google has no say in the matter.
Google could always break the Play Store / Google Play Services on Qualcomm devices, I suppose, but that would directly hurt Google, Google’s OEM partners, and the developers who build for the Google Play Store. More importantly, a move like this would make Samsung push much harder on their own App Store, and Google would attract the scrutiny of unhappy regulators. Google has no incentive to do any of that.
- pjmlp 3y agoMany questions that lawyers in international trade law have certainly an answer for. If Google actually cared about making it happen.
- coder543 3y agoThanks for those “insights” into trade law… Google isn’t above the law, despite what some people in this thread apparently wish.
- pjmlp 3y agoI bet Google can afford to pay for that insight. After all they had enough money for lawyers, to avoid becoming Microsoft on the second lawsuit of Java history After screwing up Sun.
- coder543 3y agoMoney can’t just make anything happen for any reason. Please re-read my first comment to you. Google has no apparent legal authority to stand on to do what you’re suggesting. You’re not even pretending to explain where they would get the legal authority instead of getting sued into oblivion. You’re just shouting at Google to go stomp over to Qualcomm and throw a tantrum since they have no authority to more. It makes no sense. Good luck with that.
- pjmlp 3y ago[flagged]
- coder543 3y agoYou’re the one making the extraordinary claim that Google has the authority to force Qualcomm into a far reaching support agreement. That kind of claim deserves evidence from you if you want it to be taken seriously. I never claimed to be a lawyer. Google can certainly ask Qualcomm to provide more support, but I would be very surprised if they haven’t already done that. Android is open source. If Google overstepped, then Samsung and Qualcomm would fork Android. They don’t need Google, but I’m sure they prefer to mutually benefit with Google. Google is not Microsoft. Android is not Windows. Google does not “own” Android in the way that Microsoft owns Windows. I have attempted to have a good faith conversation about your original reply, but you don’t seem interested. This conversation is going nowhere, so again… good luck with that.
- jsnell 3y agoSo they've paid for that insight, and then proceeded to not do the thing you think they're able to and should do. How exactly is this supposed to support your position? Isn't it much more a sign that any lawyer would tell them "hell no" when presented with your plan.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> Are you perhaps suggesting Google should suddenly and unilaterally prevent Android from working on Qualcomm devices until Qualcomm agrees to support it for X years? Yes, literally > Which, if it were even possible, would hurt the other OEMs more than it would hurt Google? Seriously? Whats the revenue share of Qualcomm's sales from Android vendors, 99.9%? The negotiation would last one meeting. It would only hurt the head of the Qualcomm CEO when doing a quarterly report.
- izacus 3y agoThat would be a massive violation of Android Open Source license - something this site constantly rants about when Google moves a new component behind closed doors. People are screaming at Google for "monopoly abuse" when they move the SMS app into closed source and now you want them to do what exactly? Ban OEMs from using Apache licensed Android until they bow down to their business? How do you expect that to work? Like, do you people even think for a second when you write this stufF?
- wmf 3y agoGoogle Android diverged from AOSP long ago and already has hundreds of pages of requirements. https://source.android.com/docs/compatibility/14/android-14-cdd https://source.android.com/docs/compatibility/14/android-14-... Likewise Google abused their monopoly for years, so why not use that power for good? https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/14/23341207/google-eu-android-antitrust-fine-appeal-failed-4-billion https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/14/23341207/google-eu-androi...
- izacus 3y agoBecause both US and EU are suing them to prevent that.